Tuesday, September 12, 2006

The shifting meaning of 'discrimination'

Of course, this is just the Labour government giving taxpayers money to the Unions, to give them more power so in return they will donate funding money to Labour!

So basically, Labour are (a) getting the taxpayer to indirectly fund them, and (b) making life harder for those who run businesses, and for many of those who work in them, ESPECIALLY men.

These days we have a weird reversal of language. Language gets manipulated in ways that shift the responsibility away from those who would rather appear passive victims. For example, the term 'discrimination' to me implies some kind of active stance on behalf of one person or group against another which is different from how they are treating everyone else. But what feminist and politically correct groups have managed to do is hoodwink the public into accepting a different meaning to the word. It now seems to mean anything which offends them or goes against their political aims. For example, lets say a company pays £10 per hour to all its employees and gives them all 4 weeks holiday per year. Now, the feminists would claim that this discriminates against women because some women need more time off. So what they are saying is that unless companies give ACTIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT to women, then by default they are discriminating against them.

Note that giving women the same treatment as men is no longer enough. Unless you give them special treatment, then you are discriminating.

The absurdity of this position was highlighted recently by a woman who worked as a prison officer who sued the prison service because her job involved conducting physical searches of the prisoners. Apparently this was 'discrimination' against women. But several years before, a woman's group had successfully forced the prison service to allow women to perform this task. Why? Yes, you've guessed it, because to not have them performing this task was... discrimination.

We've gone from the taxpayer having to fund single mothers (i.e. the women who choose not to work and instead make their living from having babies), to a situation where companies are now increasingly expected to fund women even when they are not working.

Only a mentally deranged or pathologically egotistical person would walk into a situation and say "I'm so special that I require special treatment. Better treatment than all you others get. And if I DON'T get this pampering, and if I get treated just the same as all the rest of you, then that means you are discriminating against me!"

Yet the men just look on in amazement as this happens with women in their workforce, they tut and briefly shake their heads before getting on with their work. After all, theres now more workload for them to cope with, as 20% of the female staff are off.

1 comment:

I have yet to see an equity or "human rights" officer stand against discrimination targeted at males or against hatred of males or ... Such "officers" are agents of promoting discrimination and bigotry.

You speak of the prison guards ... I am one of the few males who has a strong fear of being touched by a female in any situation where I do not have an out: There's VERY VERY good reason for this. But I am BY LAW not human enough to have protection.

Protection is for females ONLY. This is defined as fair and equal. Even though I face a real and measureable risk of death due to the size and scope of my fear, I am not human enough to be worthy of consideration.

Dead males are preferable to equality: THAT, that is the message of today's women and today's equity officers amd today's human rights officers and ...

Turn of the tide: feminists begin to regret

Cosmopolitan (The women's magazine that urges women to use men for sex) Editor Lorraine Candy has a change of mind and now urges women not to have "Soul-less sex":

"We didn't feel ashamed about one-night stands...this, we thought, is what feminism is about."

70s feminist Fay Weldon now says:

"It is the fault of me and my like, who... got it wrong.

So were we wrong, we feminists, setting women free? The results have been devastating – greater than we ever imagined.

We steamed ahead, changing the world with too little caution, and I hope the future will forgive us.

The pendulum has swung too far over. But it may yet swing back again. Societies, thank God, tend to be self-righting."

"Once a man could look forward to starting a family and the dignity that came from being the provider. Forget it. At best as a man you're decorative, look after the kids and earn a bit sometimes; at worst you're a write-off. Women are elbowing the men out. The boys get anxious, the girls swagger. The male suicide rate goes up, female down. Twenty-eight per cent of us now live in single person households - a lonely and unnatural state - and most of the 28 per cent consist of young men. It is strange that it is left to a woman to suggest, in the normal nurturing way, that men start some kind of movement to promote their gender's status and self-esteem - call it masculinism, brotherism, machoism, what you want - and some mark of the success of the feminist movement, that it needs to be done."

60's feminist Doris Lessing now says:"It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did."

An excerpt from an interview with Joan Rivers:

"She's not with the feminists when it comes to matters of the heart. For her, they're to blame for the current parlous state of our relationships, as depicted in these television Shows (Such as Sex in the city) and films. "I saw this coming. You cannot be equal to a man, you cannot make a man feel 'I don't need you' or 'I'll take my sex when I want it'. All these shows are so sad."

Camille Paglia :

"Women have been discouraged from genres such as sculpture that require studio training or expensive materials.

But in philosophy, mathematics, and poetry, the only materials are pen and paper.

Male conspiracy cannot explain ALL female failures.

I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant.

. . . Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species."

PubMed, which indexes the 3,000 leading medical journals, from the 1950s to present, contains 42 articles on women’s health for every one on men’s health.